3 3
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

They do. They have seen not only the ravages of war, but the social outcomes. 

"Public Dole/socialism experiment?" They have jobs, kids, part of the community, mission for helping others. I'm not trying to be dense here, but I'm really having trouble understanding this. At some point, Jerry had an "awakening" and went from rep to dem, why can they not?

That is an assumption on your part. We have many long talks. They bring their kids to my house for movie night and we go talk. They are very well-versed in the democratic platform. Yes, they were republicans and yes; most were Christians. They lost faith in both. Many are not even agnostic, but full-on atheist. 

The social experiment started on July 1, 1973 when the draft ended and we turned soldiering into a federal jobs program. Yes, 10% do go into combat but for the majority they have guaranteed jobs with education benefits. My nephew served in the US Navy as an avionics technician in Fresno. Yep, we have a Navy base in the California desert. He, like most who join, was just in for the job and the benefits. I don't doubt the integrity of your friends in any way and everyone has the right to change. But we do not bring a representative cross section of the country into our military.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

They do. They have seen not only the ravages of war, but the social outcomes. 

"Public Dole/socialism experiment?" They have jobs, kids, part of the community, mission for helping others. I'm not trying to be dense here, but I'm really having trouble understanding this. At some point, Jerry had an "awakening" and went from rep to dem, why can they not?

That is an assumption on your part. We have many long talks. They bring their kids to my house for movie night and we go talk. They are very well-versed in the democratic platform. Yes, they were republicans and yes; most were Christians. They lost faith in both. Many are not even agnostic, but full-on atheist. 

Hi Keith,

Re:  At some point, Jerry had an "awakening" and went from rep to dem

Just for the record, I want from Rep to independent.

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

The social experiment started on July 1, 1973 when the draft ended and we turned soldiering into a federal jobs program. Yes, 10% do go into combat but for the majority they have guaranteed jobs with education benefits. My nephew served in the US Navy as an avionics technician in Fresno. Yep, we have a Navy base in the California desert. He, like most who join, was just in for the job and the benefits. I don't doubt the integrity of your friends in any way and everyone has the right to change. But we do not bring a representative cross section of the country into our military.

Hi Joe,

Re:  we do not bring a representative cross section of the country into our military.

While it has been nearly 60 yrs since I got out, I have to 'somewhat' disagree when one considers the commissioned officer staff also.

Jerry Baumchen

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billeisele said:

In my statement I said, "a typical long gun is quite lethal at longer ranges but in most cases that is not what occurs in mass shootings." The word "most" was to exclude Las Vegas where a shotgun definitely would not have been as lethal. In that case, yes, smaller mags may have made a difference.

 

Fair enough. I should have read your post a little more closely. Instead of looking at most mass shootings, I guess I just focused on the worst one. In the case of the Vegas shooter the reaction was to go after bump stocks anyway, rather than high capacity magazines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

Re:  we do not bring a representative cross section of the country into our military.

While it has been nearly 60 yrs since I got out, I have to 'somewhat' disagree when one considers the commissioned officer staff also.

Jerry Baumchen

 

Hey Jerry,

I'll review the data and, as necessary, revise my thinking. But I'm pretty sure there are very underrepresented groups.

Joe

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, murps2000 said:

Fair enough. I should have read your post a little more closely. Instead of looking at most mass shootings, I guess I just focused on the worst one. In the case of the Vegas shooter the reaction was to go after bump stocks anyway, rather than high capacity magazines.

No problem. Las Vegas was bad. If the purpose of a product is to allow an unregulated semi auto to perform like, or quite similar to, a regulated auto fire gun then they probably should be regulated or banned.
If find it interesting that there has been no mention about binary triggers. I fired an AR type rifle a few months ago and it had a binary trigger. It's not exactly like a full auto but similar enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

If the purpose of a product is to allow an unregulated semi auto to perform like, or quite similar to, a regulated auto fire gun then they probably should be regulated or banned.

Why? If the gun is just a tool and cannot be blamed for anything, why should auto fire guns be regulated or banned but other guns not?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Why? If the gun is just a tool and cannot be blamed for anything, why should auto fire guns be regulated or banned but other guns not?

 

If the background checks associated with fully automatic weapons were enacted in the US. Mass shootings would be almost all eliminated. AFAIK there has never been a mass shooting associated with the registered owner of a ATF full auto license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2021 at 7:52 AM, wolfriverjoe said:

" ... I keep hearing 'background checks on all purchases'.
I keep hearing 'ban AR-15s' (not any other military style semi-auto by name - apparently the AK-47 isn't as scary anymore). ... Other rifles (AK, M1A, Mini-14)? Nada. ..."

The latest version of the Canadian Fire Arms Act specifically prohibits Ars built by Armalite plus dozens of "AR-clones" by model name and manufacturer. "AKs" built by Kalashnikov and a dozen other factories are also prohibited. The FAA also prohibits "Mini 14"and dozens of other rifles firing military ammo. It even names a variety of .50 caliber rifles, mortars, flame-throwers and rocket-launchers.

The scary part is that the revised FAA was enacted by an "Order in Council." It was never debated in the House of Commons. That is not "the democratic process."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, riggerrob said:

The latest version of the Canadian Fire Arms Act specifically prohibits Ars built by Armalite plus dozens of "AR-clones" by model name and manufacturer. "AKs" built by Kalashnikov and a dozen other factories are also prohibited. The FAA also prohibits "Mini 14"and dozens of other rifles firing military ammo. It even names a variety of .50 caliber rifles, mortars, flame-throwers and rocket-launchers.

The scary part is that the revised FAA was enacted by an "Order in Council." It was never debated in the House of Commons. That is not "the democratic process."

Non restricted, i.e. the same as any other rifle in Canada. You need a license to buy, but no registration.   Uses Ar-15 magazines.

spacer.png

Its why the licensing of individuals to buy and own guns can be more effective than banning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, riggerrob said:

The scary part is that the revised FAA was enacted by an "Order in Council." It was never debated in the House of Commons. That is not "the democratic process."

The power to enact that list resides in a law passed in a democratic process. Do you think each new model of weapon should require a debate in Parliament?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, riggerrob said:

The latest version of the Canadian Fire Arms Act specifically prohibits Ars built by Armalite plus dozens of "AR-clones" by model name and manufacturer. "AKs" built by Kalashnikov and a dozen other factories are also prohibited. The FAA also prohibits "Mini 14"and dozens of other rifles firing military ammo. It even names a variety of .50 caliber rifles, mortars, flame-throwers and rocket-launchers.

The scary part is that the revised FAA was enacted by an "Order in Council." It was never debated in the House of Commons. That is not "the democratic process."

It's called a statutory instrument and allows governments to enact secondary legislation without having to go back to parliament for every minor amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, phantomII said:

In all the reports about the latest shootings I'm missing the mention of the "good guy with a gun". Isn't he supposed to prevent the killing?
Or is he, like Lindsay Graham, only showing off on the shooting range?

Thats because America isn't armed enough. As Brent never hesitates to mention its in the middle of a gun buying frenzy right now. The NRA believes once 80% of the population has carry permits with suitable firepower, it will achieve herd immunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phantomII said:

In all the reports about the latest shootings I'm missing the mention of the "good guy with a gun". Isn't he supposed to prevent the killing?

No - he prevented all the OTHER killings that didn't happen.

Take a look at Japan and Australia - countries with strong gun laws.  That's why they have more mass shootings than the US; there is never a good guy with a gun to stop the criminals who don't heed all their laws.

Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, billvon said:

No - he prevented all the OTHER killings that didn't happen.

Take a look at Japan and Australia - countries with strong gun laws.  That's why they have more mass shootings than the US; there is never a good guy with a gun to stop the criminals who don't heed all their laws.

Right?

Bill, you just give them the ammo they need. Australia was never a wild west type land of outlaws and criminals with a gun culture and um, er, maybe, well then, so, hey, is that crazy that MLB moved the All Star Game or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

West Virginia House Passes Bill to Ban Enforcement of Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future

CHARLESTON, W. Va. (March 26, 2021) – On Friday, the West Virginia House overwhelmingly passed a bill that would set the foundation to end state enforcement of federal gun control; past, present and future. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Trying to pass laws in the wake of a shooting that if fully implemented before the shooting wouldn’t have prevented it. That is lame and stupid.

 

You guys are like watching someone eat soup with a fork. Try hard to understand that no laws about anything are ever written or implemented in a perfectly timely manner. Furthermore, because we are a representative democracy, the laws are often muddled and are never perfectly targeted. Pretty much, the best we can hope for is to careen from guardrail to guardrail until we arrive somewhere close to where we wanted to go. That's the ways the laws here work so, in the words of Richard Feynman, you don't like it then go somewhere else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

because we are a representative democracy, the laws are often muddled and are never perfectly targeted. Pretty much, the best we can hope for is to careen from guardrail to guardrail until we arrive somewhere close to where we wanted to go. That's the ways the laws here work

Well said, Joe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

West Virginia House Passes Bill to Ban Enforcement of Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future

CHARLESTON, W. Va. (March 26, 2021) – On Friday, the West Virginia House overwhelmingly passed a bill that would set the foundation to end state enforcement of federal gun control; past, present and future. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.

Hi Keith,

Back in the 70's, during the gasoline shortage, the feds said that the states had to lower the speed limit to 55 MPH on federal highways.  Some states balked; Montana & Nevada primarily.  So, the feds said we'll just keep your federal highway money.

Montana lowered their speed limit at exactly midnight of the very last day.

Funny how money talks,

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Keith,

Back in the 70's, during the gasoline shortage, the feds said that the states had to lower the speed limit to 55 MPH on federal highways.  Some states balked; Montana & Nevada primarily.  So, the feds said we'll just keep your federal highway money.

Montana lowered their speed limit at exactly midnight of the very last day.

Funny how money talks,

Jerry Baumchen

That hasn't worked to get MO to expand Medicare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3